LB 

1737 

V/5 


CORNELL  STUDY  BULLETINS  2 


igh  School  Observation 


UC-NRLF 


II  Hill  I'll  IP  ■!•>■ 

4B    7S3    Obi 


WHIPPLE 


r 
o 
o 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


Class 


CORNELL    STUDY    BULLETINS 

FOR 
TEACHERS 


No.  2 


Guide  to 
High  School  Observation 


BY 


(i.     M.     WHIPPLE 


SYRACUSE,    N.    Y. 
C.    W.  BARDEEN,   PUBLISHER 
1908 


0*7* 


GENERAL 


GUIDE  TO  HIGH  SCHOOL  OBSERVATION 

Purpose  and  use  of  the  bulletin.  The  primary  purpose  of  this 
bulletin  is  to  serve  as  a  guide  to  the  observation  of  high-school  teaching 
now  required  of  college  students  of  education  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
It  will  serve  equally  well,  however,  for  all  such  visitation  elsewhere, 
whether  by  candidate,  principal,  or  superintendent,  and  it  will  enable 
all  young  teachers  to  check  up  and  improve  their  own  work. 

In  the  State  of  New  York,  to  qualify  for  the  College  Graduate  Cer- 
tificate each  candidate  is  required  to  spend  twenty  hours  in  observation 
of  school  work  actually  in  progress.  It  is  desired  that  a  record  of  each 
visit  of  observation  be  made  in  a  permanent  note-book. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  expected  that  all  of  the  questions  can  be  an- 
swered for  each  exercise  observed,  but  in  a  series  of  visits  the  attempt 
should  be  made  to  cover  as  many  points  as  possible.  It  is  suggested 
that  a  copy  of  this  guide  should  be  at  hand  during  each  observation, 
and  that  the  points  upon  which  observation  is  made  be  checked  off 
at  the  time  in  such  a  way  that  the  guide  can  afterward  be  used  in  writ- 
ing up  the  note-book. 

Some  of  the  questions,  e.  g.,  those  concerning  the  content  of  courses, 
demand  more  than  the  mere  observation  of  class  exercises.  To  answer 
these,  the  candidate  may  usually  obtain  information  from  the  school 
program,  from  the  teacher  in  charge,  or  from  an  examination  of  the 
text-books  in  use,  but  it  might  be  well  to  expend  a  portion  of  the  ob- 
servation upon  a  school  with  the  organization  of  which  the  candidate 
is  already  familiar.  It  is  further  to  be  desired  that  the  candidate  should 
observe  work  in  more  than  one  institution,  and  that,  for  comparative 
purposes,  at  least  one  small  and  one  large  school  be  visited. 

(5) 


A.     Observation  of  the  School  Program,  Curriculum,  Attendance,  and 

General   Organization 

i.  Whenever  possible  secure  printed  schedules  of  the  school  vis- 
ited. Note  herein  the  number  of  courses  offered  (classical,  scientific, 
etc.)  the  freedom  of  election  allowed,  the  apportionment  of  time  to 
the  main  groups,  such  as  ancient  languages,  ^modern  languages,  science, 
English  and  history,  etc.  In  the  case  of  classes  you  visit,  pay  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  sequence  of  studies  in  these  groups,  to  the  time 
allotted,  and  the  ground  covered.  Compare  the  school  program  in 
these  respects  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Committee  of  Ten 
and  with  the  specimen  programs  given  in  DeGarmo's  Principles  of  Sec- 
ondary Education,  Appendixes  A-E,  especially  Appendix  B.  Cf. 
questions  57,  94-7,  127,  142,  174  and  201. 

2.  Size  and  attendance.  The  most  frequent  type  of  high  school 
is  the  small  school  with  one,  two  or  three  teachers.  The  average  high 
school  has  fewer  than  90  pupils,  and  numbers  approximately  0.8  per  cent, 
of  the  local  population.     Compare  the  school  visited  with  these  figures. 

3.  If  the  school  visited  was  a  small  one  (not  over  three  teachers), 
how  did  this  limitation  of  the  teaching  staff  affect  its  work,  e.  g.,  were 
recitation  periods  shortened;  was  there  more  text-book  and  less  lab- 
oratory and  field  work ;  was  the  number  of  courses  limited  and  the  free- 
dom of  election  thereby  curtailed;  were  the  teachers  overtaxed;  were 
they  less  well  prepared  for  their  work,  etc?  Were  there  any  advantages 
that  would  have  been  absent  in  a  larger  school?  If  the  school  was  a 
large  one  (eight  teachers  or  over),  what  advantages  appeared  in  com- 
parison with  smaller  schools?  What  disadvantages?  On  the  qual- 
ifications and  efficiency  of  teachers,  see  particularly  questions  39,  67, 
68,  70,  74,  105,  108,  no,  116,  135,  143,  155,  156  and  182. 

(6) 


4.  What  percentage  of  the  eighth  grade  entered  the  high  school? 
The  estimated  entrance  for  the  country  at  large  is  5  #. 

5.  The  estimated  distribution  of  attendance  in  American  high 
schools  in  1903-4  was:  istyear,  43  %;  2d  year,  26^;  3d  year,  18%;  4th 
year,  13%.  Compare  the  school  visited  with  these  figures.  What  per- 
centage of  those  who  enter  complete  the  full  course  and  graduate? 
Are  any  specific  measures  employed  to  encourage  attendance  and  pre- 
vent withdrawal  from  the  school  ? 

6.  The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Ten  recommends  that  the 
work  of  students  not  going  to  college  should  be  identical  with  that  of 
those  who  are  going  to  college  just  so  far  as  the  two  classes  pursue  the 
same  subjects.  Was  this  principle  approved  and  followed  in  the  school 
visited?  What  reasons  were  assigned  for  any  variations  observed? 
To  what  extent  in  general  did  the  work  of  the  school  seem  to  be  ar- 
ranged to  meet  college  entrance  requirements  ?  Were  any  special  classes 
formed  for  this  purpose? 

7.  Were  grammar-school  pupils  encouraged  and  allowed  to  begin 
such  high-school  studies  as  they  were  prepared  for?  If  so,  what  effect 
had  this  upon  attendance  in  the  high  school?  Was  care  taken  to  ad- 
just the  grammar-school  work,  particularly  that  of  the  seventh  and 
eighth  grades,  to  secure  an  early  entrance  upon  high  school  studies, 
i.  e.,  was  the  course  of  study  so  systematized  as  to  avoid  any  break 
between  grammar  and  high  school  and  to  prepare  pupils  for  the  under- 
taking of  high-school  studies? 

8.  Were  related  studies  or  groups  of  studies  so  arranged  in  the 
program  and  so  taught  as  to  make  their  important  inter-relations  ap- 
parent to  the  pupil? 

9.  Was  the  training  for  securing  efficiency  in  the  use  of  knowledge 
equal  to  that  for  securing  insight?  Cf.  questions  27,  34,  57,  112,  115, 
126,  127,  131,  134,  146,  157,  161,  176  and  199. 

10.  Were  there  any  clubs  or  societies  in  the  school  aside  from 


secret  societies. or  athletic  associations,  e.  g.,  debating  or  literary  so- 
cieties, scientific,  mathematical,  or  English  clubs,  etc?  Was  member- 
ship confined  to  teachers  or  to  pupils  alone?     Cf.  question  39. 

11.  Were  any  school  or  public  lectures  given  by  the  teachers  or 
outside  talent?  How  supported?  Is  the  building  used  for  any  other 
purposes,  aside  from  the  regular  work  of  instruction? 

12.  Was  the  school  co-educational?  To  what  extent,  in  seating, 
in  attendance  at  class  exercises,  school  functions,  etc.,  was  segregation 
of  the  sexes  observed? 

13.  Was  the  school  provided  with  an  adequate  reference  library 
With  a  reading  room?     At  what  hours  accessible  to  students? 


B.     Observation  of  Psychological  Principles  in  Teaching 

N.  B. — Questions  in  this  section  are  to  be  undertaken  in  all  classes  visited. 

14.  School  exercises  may  be  classed  as  lectures,  recitations,  ex- 
aminations, written  or  verbal  (quizzes),  laboratory,  shop  or  field  ex- 
ercises, as  review,  drill,  or  study  lessons,  assignments,  etc.,  or  they  may 
be  further  described  in  terms  of  method  of  conducting  or  treatment 
of  the  topic  as  heuristic,  Socratic,  individual,  developmental  or  genetic, 
inductive,  deductive,  etc.  Which  of  these  terms  apply  to  the  exercise 
and  method  observed? 

15.  Instinct.  Did  you  observe  any  appeal  to,  or  operation  of, 
instinctive  tendencies,  such  as  competition  (emulation),  curiosity,  play 
(and  games),  imitation,  the  migratory  instinct,  social  interests  (sym- 
pathy, co-operation,  altruism),  interest  in  constructive  work,  in  mak- 
ing collections,  in  esthetic  or  artistic  expression,  etc?  Any  instances 
in  which  these  tendencies  were  advantageous,  or  the  contrary? 

16.  Individual  differences.  Temperamant.  To  what  extent  and 
how  did  the  teacher  adapt  his  work  to  meet  individual  differences  in 
temperament,  in  emotional  type,  in  mental  alertness  or  sluggishness, 
in  breadth  of  general  information,  etc?  Was  any  provision  made  for 
systematic  individual  instruction  (Batavia  method,  arrangements  for 
individual  advancement,  promotion,  etc.)? 

17.  Attention  and  interest.     What  appeared  to  be  the  dominant 

motive  behind  the  work  of  the  class: — interest  in  the  work,  curiosity 

to  know,  spirit  of  competition,  fear  of  displeasure  of  the  teacher,  desire 

to  merit  approval,  desire  to  get  good  marks  or  mere  habit  and  immersion 

in  the  routine  of  the  day's  work?     In  general,  was  'effort'  or  'interest' 

more  conspicuous? 

(9) 


10 

1 8.  Was  the  attention  attained  of  high  degree:  was  it  forced  or 
natural:  was  it  active,  passive,  or  secondary  passive  in  type? 

19.  Did  all  the  pupils  pay  attention  all  the  time?  What  means 
did  the  teacher  employ  to  maintain  the  attention  and  interest  of  the 
reciting  class,  or  the  classes  not  reciting?  Was  there  any  appeal  to 
'false  mediate  interest,'  or  to  the  practical  value  or  applications  of  the 
work?  Did  you  see  any  evidence  of  wasted  time  due  to  inattentiveness 
or  lack  of  application  in  classes  reciting  or  studying:  could  this  waste 
have  been  avoided  and  how?     Cf.  question  37. 

20.  Motor  expression:  motor  activity.  What  proportion  of  the 
work  and  in  what  studies  was  opportunity  furnished  for  motor  activity 
or  direct  application  of  the  information  acquired  in  the  lesson?  Was 
the  activity  verbal,  manual,  or  of  what  type?  Was  its  object  to  develop 
technique,  to  secure  physical  or  hygienic  benefits,  to  assist  in  the  ac- 
quisition of  information,  or  what? 

21.  If  blackboard  work  or  written  exercises  were  employed,  was 
this  work  sufficiently  neat  and  legible  ?  Did  the  teacher  take  any  pains 
to  require  neatness  and  good  form  as  well  as  correctness  of  content,  or 
was  this  work  regarded  merely  as  a  means  to  an  end? 

22.  Learning,  memory,  association,  apperception  and  observation. 
Did  you  observe  instances  of  learning  by  imitation  or  by  practice  (trial 
and  error)  as  well  as  by  instruction? 

23.  To  what  extent  did  the  teacher  make  use  of  repetition,  of 
vividness,  and  of  organization  in  establishing  associations  and  in  se- 
curing permanence  and  recall? 

24.  Did  the  teacher  skilfully  and  thoroly  associate  the  new  with 
the  old?  How  much  time  and  attention  was  devoted  to  ' preparation ' ? 
Was  there  any  use  of  a  definite  plan  such  as  the  '  formal  steps '  in  the 
conduct  of  the  lesson?  If  there  was  a  summary  or  application,  was 
this  made  by  teacher  or  pupils?     Was    the   assignment  calculated  to 


11 

stimulate  the  pupil  and  assist  him  in  the  ensuing  study  or  laboratory 
work?     How  much  time  was  devoted  to  the  assignment? 

25.  Was  there  any  definite  training  in  observation — of  what  sort 
and  in  what  studies?     How  valuable?     Cf.  questions  34  and  157. 

26.  How  did  the  pupils  appear  to  remember  and  recall  what  they 
recited — by  thinking,  by  'logical'  memory,  or  by  mere  verbal  memory, 
by  the  use  of  artificial  or  mnemonic  devices:  did  they  depend  on  real 
knowledge  of  the  content  of  the  subject  or  mere  'booklearning?'  If 
memoriter  work  was  used,  was  it  legitimately  used?  Which  kind  of 
memorizing  did  the  text-book  or  the  teacher  encourage  ?  On  memoriter 
work,     cf.  questions  81,  106,  no  and  135. 

27.  Imagination,  active  thought,  reasoning.  To  what  extent,  in 
what  ways  and  in  what  studies  did  you  see  the  exercise  of  creative  im- 
agination? Was  some  form  of  'problem-solving'  used  in  all  studies? 
Was  the  original  work  done  at  the  time  in  the  class  or  had  it  been  pre- 
viously assigned  for  outside  work?  Was  the  training  in  this  direction 
calculated  to  produce  or  develop  general  constructive  ability  in  other 
lines?     Cf.   questions   9   and   34. 

28.  Did  you  see  any  statement  of  a  principle  or  of  any  law  worked 
out  in  the  class:  if  so,  how  was  it  done?  In  what  studies  did  you  ob- 
serve deductive  reasoning:  in  what  inductive  reasoning?  Did  the 
teacher  employ  this  opportunity  to  train  the  pupils  in  correct  reason- 
ing, in  the  elimination  of  bias,  emotional  influences,  etc.? 

29.  Verbal  expression,  language.  "More  than  one-half  of  the 
errors  in  philosophy,"  says  Huxley,  "have  arisen  from  mistakes  about 
the  meaning  of  words."  Did  you  see  any  evidence  of  such  mistakes 
in  the  teaching  you  observed?     Cf.  question  86. 

30.  To  what  extent  is  the  fluency  and  correctness  of  the  language 
a  pupil  employs  a  reliable  criterion  of  his  knowledge  and  general 
ability? 


12 

J  i.  Were  there  any  instances  in  which  the  language  used  did  not 
seem  to  express  the  real  content  of  the  pupil's  mind?  Did  the  teacher 
recast  the  language  for  him,  or  insist  on  further  attempts  by  the  pupil, 
or  allow  the  form  of  the  expression  to  pass  unmodified? 

32.  Did  the  teacher  in  general  insist  on  accuracy  in  the  use  of 
language  ?     Was  this  carried  to  extremes  ?    Were  the  efforts  successful  ? 

33.  Did  the  method  of  conducting  the  recitation,  especially  the 
phrasing  of  questions,  encourage  or  compel  the  pupil  to  express  his  ideas 
in  good  language?  Were  topics  assigned  for  discussion  or  was  the 
1  question-and-answer '  method  followed?  Were  the  questions  answer- 
able by '  yes '  or '  no '  or  did  they  demand  full  statements  ?  Were  '  pump- 
ing' questions  used? 

34.  Mental  training  or  formal  discipline.  Could  you  discriminate 
between  the  work  of  the  teacher  (a)  in  imparting  information,  and  (6) 
in  developing  or  training  the  pupil's  capacities  in  a  general  way,  i.  e., 
was  anything  acquired  by  the  pupil  apart  from  information  that  would 
be  of  value  to  him  in  other  lines  of  activity?  What  was  the  nature, 
value  and  extent  of  this  disciplinary  training?  Cf.  questions  9,  27, 
140,  141,  157,  161  and  207. 

35.  Were  any  steps  taken  by  the  teacher  to  build  up  good  habits 
or  ideals  of  a  general  nature,  such  as  neatness,  accuracy,  attentiveness, 
industriousness,  punctuality,  good  expression,  honor,  integrity,  etc.? 
Cf.  questions  112  and  114. 


C.     Observation  of  Discipline  and  Control,  Moral  Training. 

36.  What  was  the  general  'spirit'  or  emotional  tone  of  the  class, 
or  of  the  school  as  a  whole — cheerful,  eager,  sullen,  depressed,  indifferent? 
What  was  that  of  the  teacher  or  teachers  ?  Did  the  mood  of  the  teach- 
er communicate  itself  to  the  class?  How  did  the  pupils'  moods  effect 
their  own  work?  Did  you  observe  any  difference  in  the  tone  or 
discipline  of  different  classrooms:  to  what  do  you  ascribe  it? 

37.  Did  the  teacher  have  to  correct  the  behavior  of  any  individual 
pupil:  for  what,  in  what  manner?  Did  the  teacher  check  incipient 
disturbance  by  questions  directed  at  the  offenders?     Cf.  question  19. 

38.  Was  any  school-government  device  employed,  such  as  the 
'School  City',  student  monitors,  honor  system,  etc.?  How  did  it  work? 
Cf.  question  126. 

39.  Did  you  learn  of  any  friction  between  the  principal  or  teach- 
ers and  the  pupils  with  regard  to  the  control  of  matters  outside  the  class 
room,  e.  g.,  athletics,  secret  societies,  class  meetings,  dances,  or  other 
social  functions  ? 

40.  Was  any  formal  instruction  given  in  ethics  or  morality? 
What  religious  exercises,  if  any,  were  observed? 

41.  Was  the  movement  of  classes  to  and  from  rooms,  to  black- 
boards, etc.,  orderly  or  disorderly,  systematic  or  uncontrolled? 

42.  Was  there  any  roughness  or  discourteous  behavior  at  re- 
cess or  during  recreation  periods? 


(13) 


D.     Observation  of  Hygienic  Conditions 

43.  Did  you  note  any  undesirable  features  in  the  school  building, 
in  its  location,  size,  orientation,  architectural  composition,  quality  of 
construction,  lack  of  fire-proofing,  arrangements  of  stair-ways,  corridors, 
wardrobes,  etc.? 

44.  Were  the  classrooms  of  proper  size  and  shape,  the  seats  well 
arranged,  not  overcrowded,  etc.? 

45.  Was  the  illumination  satisfactory  with  regard  to  the  number, 
size,  and  distribution  of  the  windows,  color  of  walls  and  ceilings,  kind 
of  shades,  use  of  artificial  light? 

46.  Note  warmth  and  ventilation.  Was  the  air  stuffy  and  heavy? 
Did  you  see  any  inlet  and  outlet  flues, — large  or  small?  Heated  by 
what  means? 

47.  Were  the  seats  and  desks  hygienic?  Adjustable?  At  proper 
distances  ? 

48.  How  many  pupils  assumed  bad  postures  in  reading  and  writ- 
ing? Describe  the  more  typical  of  these  undesirable  postures.  Did  the 
teacher  make  an  effort  to  correct  them? 

49.  Did  you  notice  any  apparently  uncorrected  cases  of  defective 
sight  or  hearing?  Any  pupils  holding  their  books  too  near  their  faces? 
How  many  wore  glasses? 

50.  Was  there  any  systematic  medical  or  hygienic  supervision  of 
these  pupils? 

5 1 .  Did  any  of  the  pupils  show  signs  of  over- work — undue  nervous- 
ness, generally  poor  health,  chorea,  fagged  expression,  poor  nutrition ? 

52.  Was  the  writing  on  the  board  sufficiently  large  and  distinct  to 
be  legible  to  all?     Was  the  text-book  well  printed? 

(14) 


15 

53-  Was  writing  taught  formally?  Had  they  been  taught  the 
vertical  system?  Did  they  use  in  school  exercises  vertical  or  slant 
writing? 

54.  Note  any  exceptional  children: — unusually  large  or  small, 
unusually  bright  or  dull;  any  with  marked  physical  defects. 

55.  Was  the  playground  indoors  or  out  or  both ?  Was  it  adequate 
in  size?     Did  teachers  supervise  the  recess  periods? 

56.  Was  the  program  arranged  with  skilful  interruptions  to  insure 
alternation  of  activity  and  rest  or  different  types  of  activity?  Was  dif- 
ficult work  placed  first  on  the  program? 


E.     Observation  of  Classes  in  Foreign  Languages.     General  Directions 
and  Questions  for  Latin,  Greek,  German  and  French 

57.  Ascertain  as  far  as  possible  the  number  of  years  or  terms 
given  to  the  language,  the  general  apportionment  of  work  therein:  time 
allotted  to  grammar,  to  drill,  to  acquisition  of  vocabularies,  to  com- 
position, to  translation,  to  sight  reading;  ascertain  what  types  of  liter- 
ature (fables,  poems,  dramas,  histories,  etc.)  and  what  authors  were 
read. 

58.  What  was  the  chief  aim  of  the  translation  work  in  the  class 
visited: — to  acquire  facility  with  the  foreign  language,  to  acquire  in- 
formation concerning  the  nation  or  civilization  represented  by  the  for- 
eign tongue,  or  to  acquire  facility  in  the  use  of  English?  Note  carefully 
and  particularly  whether  the  teacher  insists  upon  translation  into  Eng- 
lish of  the  best  quality,  fluent  and  idiomatic,  or  whether  'un-English' 
and  senseless  jargon  is  tolerated,  thus  destroying  to  a  large  extent 
the  value  of  language  training,  especially  that  in  the  classics. 

59.  Was  the  use  of  'ponies,'  interlinear  translations,  or  English 
translations  of  any  sort  advocated,  tolerated,  or  surreptitiously  prac- 
ticed? If  so,  what  effect  did  this  have  upon  the  training  that  trans- 
lation is  expected  to  give,  and  upon  the  value  to  the  pupil  of  the  study 
of  the  foreign  languages  in  general? 

60.  Did  the  pupils  seem  to  be  getting  the  import  of  what  they 
were  reading  about,  or  did  they  simply  get  disconnected  sentences  or 
phrases? 

61.  Was  reading  without  translation  a  part  of  the  exercises? 

62.  Was  any  sight  translation  done? 

(16) 


17 

63 .  Did  the  pupils  show  a  ready  and  accurate  familiarity  with  forms 
and  inflections,  with  principal  parts  of  verbs,  etc.?  Was  much  attention 
paid  to  this  in  the  class? 

64.  How  much  attention  was  paid  to  derivation:  i.  e.,  to  the  rela- 
tion of  English  terms  to  those  found  in  the  text?  Was  the  attention 
given  sufficient? 

65.  Was  there  composition  work,  in  the  foreign  tongue?  If  so, 
was  it  made  a  weekly  exercise  extending  over  some  months,  or  was  it 
condensed  into  daily  exercises  extending  over  a  few  weeks?  Did  the 
pupils  give  the  sentences  orally? 


F.     Observations  of  Classes  in  Latin 

66.  Answer  questions  Nos.  57  to  65  in  the  order  given.  As  a 
most  important  element,  describe  carefully  and  fully  the  character  of 
the  translation  in  accordance  with  question  58. 

67.  Did  the  teacher  know  enough  Latin  to  justify  his  attempt 
to  teach  it? 

68.  Did  teacher  and  class  exhibit  enthusiastic  interest,  or  was 
it  absent  from  both  ?     On  whose  part  were  there  signs  of  life  ? 

69.  If  the  Roman  method  of  pronunciation  was  attempted,  was 
it  accurately  and  thoroly  taught  and  successfully  practiced? 

70.  Did  the  pupils  seem  to  have  any  knowledge  of  Roman  History? 
Did  the  teacher?     Cf.  questions  95,  102,  103,  and  others  in  Section  J. 


(18) 


G.     Observation  of  Classes  in  Greek 

71.     Answer  questions  Nos.  57  to  65  in  the  order  given. 

7  2 .     Was  attention  paid  to  the  Greek  elements  in  English  words  ? 

73.  Was  attention  directed  to  the  force  and  value  for  rhetorical 
emphasis  of  word-position  in  the  sentence? 

74.  Did  the  teacher  seem  to  have  such  a  command  of  the  subject 
as  to  be  able  to  supplement  the  text-book? 

75.  Did  the  artistic  excellence  of  the  Greek  product,  words,  prose 
or  poetry,  receive  notice? 


(19) 


H.     Observation  of  Classes  in  German  (or  French) 

76.  Answer  questions  Nos.  57  to  65  in  the  order  given. 

77.  What  was  the  method  or  system  of  instruction:  natural,  clas- 
sical, phonetic,  Gouin,  Berlitz,  etc.,  or  an  adaptation  of  one  of  these? 

78.  What  language  was  employed  in  the  class  ?     With  what  result  ? 

79.  To  what  extent  was  object- teaching  employed? 

80.  Was    German    (or    French)    conversation    introduced    as    an 
exercise  ? 

81.  Was  the  memorizing  of  poems  or  prose  selections  required, 
and  to  what  extent? 


(20) 


I.     Observation    of    Classes    in    English:  Elocution,    Rhetoric,    English 
Composition 'English  Literature 

82.  To  what  extent  (in  classes  not  engaged  in  formal  Elocution 
and  Oratory)  was  reading  aloud  from  English  texts,  prose  or  poetry,  re- 
quired of  the  pupils? 

83.  In  such  reading,  how  much  guidance  and  how  much  correction 
were  given  with  a  view  to  enforcing  clearness  and  ease  of  utterance  ? 

84.  In  especial,  to  what  extent  were  the  students  trained  to  read 
each  complete  sentence  as  a  unit,  with  a  view  to  bringing  out  its  sig- 
nificance as  a  whole  and  its  emphatic  portions? 

85.  What  mistakes  of  enunciation,  of  pronunciation,  of  accent 
(stress),  did  you  notice?  Which  of  these  were  common  to  two  or  more 
students  ? 

86.  Did  the  class  exercises  indicate  that  the  students  were  trained 
to  understand  adequately  the  words  used  by    them?     Cf.  question  29. 

87.  How  closely  was  the  written  work  corrected  for  grammar, 
spelling,  use  of  words,  clearness  of  sentence-structure? 

88.  Did  the  teacher  insert  the  corrections,  or  use  conventional 
signs? 

89.  Were  the  students  required  to  re- write  papers? 

90.  Were  paragraph  papers  written  in  your  presence?  If  you 
had  an  opportunity  of  examining  such  papers,  what  is  your  estimate 
of  them  as  evidence  of  the  writers'  training? 

91.  Did  any  students  write  exercises  on  the  blackboard?  Were 
such  exercises  corrected  by  other  students?  Orally,  or  also  in  writing 
on  the  blackboard?     How  searching  was  the  correction? 

(21) 

OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

CF 


22 

92.  To  what  extent  and  in  what  ways  were  the  reading  and  inter- 
pretations of  English  texts,  prose  or  poetry,  and  the  writing  of  English 
papers,   (paragraphs  or  longer  papers),  mutually  helpful? 

93.  How  were  grammar  and  composition  (rhetoric)  taught?  With, 
or  without,  a  manual  (text-book)?  Was  the  instruction  practical,  or 
merely  theoretical?  Did  the  topic  selected  prove  attractive  to  the 
pupils? 


j.     Observation  of  Classes  in  History  and  Civics" 
(a)      Questions  relating  to  history 

94.  Place  in  the  curriculum.  What  courses  were  given  in  his- 
tory?  Were  they  elective  or  required?  What  proportion  of  the 
pupils  study  American  history,  and  for  how  long? 

95.  Was  Greek  and  Roman  history  taught  in  intimate  connection 
with  Greek  and  Roman  literature? 

96.  Were  history  and  civics  taught  together  or  as  separate  courses? 
If  the  latter,  were  they  taught  by  the  same  teacher? 

97.  Was  there  any  attempt  to  correlate  work  in  drawing  with  the 
study  of  history  ? 

98.  Method  of  presentation.  Was  a  text-book  or  books  used; 
if  so,  what?     Was  reading  assigned  in  other  texts  or  works  of  reference? 

99.  To  what  extent,  if  at  all,  was  use  made  of  the  'problem-set- 
ting' or  the  'topical'  method:  did  it  supplant  the  use  of  a  text-book? 

100.  Was  any  attempt  made  at  research  work,  in  the  sense  of  con- 
sultation of  original  sources,  hunting  up  the  facts  of  local  history  etc.  ? 

10 1.  Were  discussions  or  debates  held  in  the  class? 

102.  Content  and  type  of  course.  Was  ancient  and  medieval  his- 
tory studied  m  preference  to,  or  to  the  exclusion  of,  modern  history? 

103.  Was  the  history  of  foreign  countries  studied  in  preference 
to,  or  to  the  exclusion  of,  American  history?     If  so,  why? 

104.  Did  the  study  of  American  history  cover  the  same  ground 
that  had  previously  been  studied  in  the  grades?  If  so,  how  did  the 
high-school  course  differ  from  the  grade  course: — in  selection  of  material, 
complexity  of  the  problems  studied,  greater  emphasis  on  causal  rela- 
tions on  the  principles  involved,  different  methods  of  study,  mere  in- 
crease of  detail,  or  what? 

(23) 


24 

105.  Was  overmuch  time  apparently  given  to  the  consideration 
of  certain  periods  or  to  details  that  were  relatively  unimportant,  i.  e. 
did  the  text  or  did  the  teacher  exhibit  lack  of  perspective? 

106.  Chronological  relations.  What  principle  seemed  to  determine 
the  number  and  kind  of  dates  selected  to  be  learned?  Were  too  many 
dates  required?  Too  few?  Was  the  learning  of  a  prescribed  list  of 
dates  made  an  independent  exercise?  Was  any  time  spent  in  develop- 
ing a  systematic  chronology  so  as  to  insure  correct  temporal  perspective  ? 
Were  any  chronological  charts  or  other  devices  employed  to  fix  im- 
portant dates,  periods,  or  sequences  of  events,  e.  g.f  the  campaigns  of 
the  Civil  War? 

107.  Geographical  relations.  Was  the  study  of  the  history  of  a 
country  or  section  preceded  by  careful  study  of  its  geographic  features? 
Were  adequate  maps  employed  ?     Were  any  maps  drawn  by  the  pupils  ? 

108.  Did  the  teacher  take  measures  to  associate  historic  events 
with  the  places  where  they  occurred?  Did  he,  for  instance,  adopt  the 
plan  of  assigning  essays  on  the  historic  scenes  clustering  about  a  given 
locality,  as  ''Lake  Champlain  in  History,"  or  "Historic  Landmarks  of 
Salem  and  Vicinity?"  Did  the  teacher  appear  to  have  visited  person- 
ally the  localities  under  discussion? 

109.  Was  any  specific  study  of  the  physiography  of  countries  or 
sections  of  countries  undertaken  in  order  to  show  the  influence  of  soil, 
climate,  food-supply,  configuration  of  the  country,  and  other  factore 
in  shaping  history,  e.  g.,  effect  of  the  geographic  isolation  of  England, 
effect  of  the  Nile  on  Egyptian  civilization,  effect  of  the  climate  and 
geography  of  Greece  on  its  history,  effect  of  the  situation  of  great  cities 
like  London,  Rome,  and  New  York  on  their  historic  development? 

no.  Logical  or  causal  relations.  Montesquieu,  in  his  Spirit  of 
Laws,  asserts  that  "the  course  of  history  is  on  the  whole  determined 
by  general  causes,  by  widespread  and  persistent  tendencies."     Guizot, 


25 

however,  remarks  that  " nothing  tortures  history  more  than  logic." 
Was  the  teacher  skilful  enough  to  bring  out  these  fundamental  causes 
and  broad  tendencies  without  falling  into  the  error  of  torturing  historic 
truth  by  the  imposition  of  debateable  doctrines  and  interpretations  of 
his  own?  Were  the  pupils  made  to  do  enough  thinking  to  avoid  the 
tendency  of  reducing  history  to  mere  memoriter  work? 

in.  It  is  commonly  agreed  that  the  American  Union  in  its  present 
proportions  would  have  been  impossible  without  the  invention  of  the 
steam  engine  and  the  telegraph:  was  the  effect  of  invention  and  indus- 
trial progress  generally  in  shaping  the  course  of  history  clearly  brought 
out? 

112.  Training — mental,  moral,  and  social.  Professor  Jenks,  in  his 
Citizenship  and  the  Schools,  regards  as  of  the  greatest  consequence  in 
the  training  of  citizens,  "the  cultivation  in  our  schools  of  the  spirit  of 
impartiality,  which  gives  sound  judgment,  and  a  feeling  of  personal  re- 
sponsibility.' '  Was  the  teaching  of  history  so  conducted  as  to  inculcate 
this  spirit  of  toleration  as  a  prerequisite  for  the  formation  of  sound 
social  judgments?  Were  the  pupils,  for  instance,  brought  to  see  that 
there  were  arguments  on  both  sides  of  such  questions  as  precipitated 
the  War  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Civil  War,  or  were,  on  the  contrary, 
partizanship,  sectional  or  racial  pride,  fostered  by  the  manner  of  pre- 
sentation ? 

113.  Were  pupils  taught  to  distinguish  between  facts,  and  opinions 
about  facts  or  interpretations  of  facts? 

114.  Was  history  so  taught  as  to  inculcate  ideals  and  standards 
of  honor,  worth  and  integrity? 

115.  In  particular,  was  history  so  taught  as  to  stimulate  pupils  to 
take  an  active  and  intelligent  interest  in  the  conduct  of  civil  affairs  ? 

116.  Teacher's  qualifications.  Hinsdale  enumerates  the  follow- 
ing as  essential  qualifications  of  the  teacher  of  history:   (1)  familiarity 


26 

with  the  subject-matter  and  a  good  sense  of  perspective  and  proportion, 

(2)  a  desire  to  state  and  point  the  truth  impartially  and  without  bias, 

(3)  enthusiasm  for  the  subject,  (4)  ability  to  tell  a  tale  in  a  pleasing 
way  and  in  clear  and  simple  language,  (5)  a  retentive  memory,  (6)  a 
vivid  imagination,  (7)  sound  judgment  and  an  insight  into  character, 
(8)  close  touch  with  current  affairs,  including  acquaintance  with  civic 
institutions  and  knowledge  of  political  economy,  (9)  personal  fa- 
miliarity with  historic  localities,  (10)  some  knowledge  of  antiquities, 
and  a  wide  acquaintance  with  general  literature.  Which  of  these 
qualifications  did  you  see  exhibited  by  the  teacher?  Did  any  of  them 
appear  to  be  lacking? 

(b)        Questions  relating  to  civics 

117.  Was  any  text-book  employed:  if  so,  what? 

118.  Was  there  any  formal  study  of  economics? 

119.  Was  there  discussion  of  current  political  issues,  general  or 
local?  If  so,  was  this  discussion  confined  to  classes  in  civics,  or  made 
a  general  school  exercise,  e.  g.  current  events'  talks,  etc.? 

120.  Did  instruction  deal  first  with  local,  State,  or  National  gov- 
ernment? Which  of  these  received  most  attention?  Which  is  most 
important  in  the  high  school? 

121.  Was  sufficient  attention  given  to  the  line  of  separation  be- 
tween State  and  National  authority? 

122.  Was  study  made  of  political  organizations  and  political  ma- 
chinery,— of  parties,  caucuses,  conventions,  etc.,  and  of  the  part  played 
by  them  in  our  government? 

123.  Was  any  attention  given  to  the  comparative  study  of  po- 
litical institutions  and  forms  of  government,  e.  g.,  of  France,  Germany, 
England,  or  of  Greece  and  Rome?  Was  the  pupil  brought  to  see  that 
other  forms  of  government  than  our  own  may  exhibit  some  merits? 

124.  Was  the  evil  as  well  as  the  good  in  present  social  and  civic  con- 


27 

ditions  definitely  brought  out,  and  was  there  any  stimulating  discussion 
of  the  remedies  therefor? 

125.  Was  any  attempt  made  to  study  the  school  as  a  social  agency 
in  the  community,  e.  g.,  its  support,  its  benefits,  its  defects,  etc.? 

126.  Did  the  class  or  the  school  as  a  whole  engage  in  any  activities 
that  would  allow  the  practice  of  social  or  civic  virtues,  e.  g.,  organized 
philanthropy,  formation  of  a  charity  society,  'Street-Cleaning  Brigade,' 
etc.?  In  particular,  was  the  'School  City'  or  any  similar  form  of  self- 
government  tried,  and  if  so,  with  what  success?  Report  in  detail.  Cf. 
question  38. 


K.     Observation  of  Classes  in  Mathematics 

127.  Place  in  the  curriculum.  Cf.  question  1.  Was  any  cor- 
relation attempted  between  the  various  branches  of  mathematics  or 
between  mathematics  and  physics,  chemistry,  physiography,  manual 
training  or  other  studies,  or  were  the  several  branches  of  mathematics 
taught  on  the  'water-tight-compartment'  plan? 

128.  Had  the  pupils  been  taught  simple  algebra  or  concrete  geom- 
etry in    connection  with  arithmetic  or  drawing  in  the  grade  schools? 

129.  Content  of  course.  Was  any  attention  paid  to  post-Euclidean 
developments  of  geometry,  such  as  anharmonic  ratio  of  four  points  on  a 
straight  line,  the  use  of  motion  or  algebraic  solutions  in  proof,  the  mod- 
ern geometry  of  the  triangle,  non-Euclidean  geometry,  etc.? 

130.  Were  the  principles  not  found  in  the  text-book  developed  in 
the  class;  by  the  teacher  alone  or  teacher  and  class  together? 

131.  Were  practical  applications  enforced  wherever  possible?  Was 
the  use  of  mathematics  as  a  tool  for  the  study  of  nature  kept  in  mind? 
Cf.  questions  127,  134  and  149. 

132.  Was  the  theory  of  limits  or  nature  of  irrational  numbers 
taught?  If  so,  was  the  work  done  correctly  and  was  it  understood  by 
the  pupils? 

133.  Methods:  type  of  instruction.  Was  the  lesson  as  presented 
an  instance  of  analysis,  synthesis,     deduction  or  induction? 

134.  Was  use  made  of  the  laboratory  method, — of  physical  appa- 
ratus, measurement,  fieldwork,  surveying,  cross-section  paper,  graphics, 
paper-folding,  mechanical  drawing,  models,  etc.?  Was  the  stereoscope 
used  in  solid  geometry? 

135.  Did  the  teacher  have  sufficient  knowledge  and  skill  to  keep 
the  work  above  the  level  of  mere  rote  learning  or  mere  mechanical  ap- 
plication of  axioms  and  rules? 

m 


((   UNIVERSITY 

F 


IFORN^fe^ 


29 


136.  What  use  was  made  of  note-books  or  exercise-books? 

137.  Was  there  any  oral  work  in  algebra  comparable  to  oral  arith- 
metic ? 

138.  Was  the  use  of  the  slide  rule  in  computation  taught? 

139.  Was  liberty  allowed  in  notation  or  a  uniform  system  demanded  ? 

140.  Mental  training.  Geometry  and  algebra  are  said  by  various 
writers  to  furnish  disciplinary  training  of  such  mental  functions  as  the 
following: — grasping  a  situation,  appreciation  of  what  constitutes  com- 
pleteness of  proof  ('Q.  E.  D.-ness'),  the  formation  and  use  of  symbols, 
reverence  for  truth,  ingenuity,  constructiveness,  creative  imagination, 
esthetic  appreciation  of  symmetry  and  proportion,  appreciation  of  the 
worth  of  knowledge  for  its  own  sake,  self -scrutiny,  attentiveness,  neat- 
ness, accuracy,  and  deductive  reasoning:  did  you  see  in  the  work  you 
observed  any  signs  of  such  mental  training,  if  so,  of  what  sort? 

141.  Did  you  see  any  opportunity  for  training  in  'contingent  con- 
clusions '  ? 


L.     Observation  of  Classes  in  Physics  and  Chemistry 

(With  some  modification  many  of  the  questions  in  this  Section 
may  be  utilized  in  the  observation  of  classes  in  other  branches  of  science.) 

(a)  Place  in  the  curriculum 

142.  What  was  the  sequence  of  science  work  of  the  school  in  gen- 
eral? In  what  year  was  this  science  taught?  If  more  than  one  course 
was  offered,  were  the  courses  continuous?  Was  the  work  required  of 
all  pupils?  Was  there  a  'popular'  course  as  well  as  a  college  prepar- 
atory in  this  science?  Was  there  a  descriptive  or  general  science  course 
in  the  first  year  of  the  school?  Had  the  pupils  had  any  previous  work 
in  the  subject  (science  work  or  nature  study)  in  the  elementary  schools  ? 

143.  Was  all  the  science  teaching  done  by  one  teacher?  Did  this 
teacher  have  charge  of  any  branches  other  than  science?  How  did 
this  effect  the  character  of  the  work  in  this  science? 

(b)  Form  of  instruction 

144.  What  was  the  total  number  of  periods  and  total  actual  hours 
given  to  this  subject?  What  proportion  of  this  time  was  given  to  class 
work,  lecture  demonstration  work,  and  laboratory  work  respectively? 

(c)      Content  and  type  of  the  course 

145.  Did  you  note  any  evidence  of  the  lack  of  adaptation  of  the 
work  to  the  mental  abilities,  interests,  and  needs  of  adolescents,  e.  g., 
work  too  abstract,  too  remote  from  real  life,  too  mathematical,  too  mi- 
nute, too  difficult,  etc.? 

146.  Was  the  standpoint  in  the  main  that  of  work  in  pure  science 
or  in  applied  science,  i.  e.,  was  much  stress  laid  upon  the  relation  of  the 
science  to  daily  life,  industrial  and  commercial  applications,  etc.?  Did 
the  class  visit  industrial  plants? 

147.  Was  the  subject  taught  as  if  science  were  organized  knowledge 


31 

or  as  if  it  were  a  process  or  method  of  organizing  knowledge,  i.  e.,  was 
familiarity  with  subject-matter  or  familiarity  with  the  spirit  and  meth- 
od of  science  made  primary? 

148.  Were  abstract  concepts,  complicated  theories,  and  specula- 
tions taught  at  the  expense  of,  or  prior  to,  an  adequate  knowledge 
of  facts,  e.  g.,  was  discussion  of  the  definitions  of  heat  as  the  kinetic 
energy  of  molecules  demanded  of  pupils  who  could  not  give  an  intelli- 
gible description  of  a  heating  plant? 

149.  Was  much  emphasis  placed  upon  measurement;  upon  exact 
quantitative  treatment,  upon  computation,  graphic  work,  plotting 
curves,  equations,  and  mathematical  work  generally?  Was  the  student 
in  chemistry  required  to  write  equations  for  qualitative  changes? 

150.  Was  rigor  and  logic  overemphasized  at  the  expense  of  scien- 
tific 'intuition'  and  imagination,  e.  g.,  by  requiring  the  pupil  to  prove 
something  which  he  recognized  as  true  at  once? 

151.  Was  due  advantage  taken  of  the  personal,  biographic,  and 
historical  features  of  the  science;  how  were  these  features  introduced 
and  utilized? 

152.  Was  any  use  made  in  demonstration  or  experiment  of  physi- 
cal toys,  such  as  balloons,  soap-bubbles,  color-tops,  engines,  motors, 
the  kaleidoscope,  etc.?  Was  advantage  taken  of  the  present  interest 
in  gas  engines  and  other  forms  of  the  explosion-motor? 

153.  What  text-book  was  used?  Was  it  satisfactory?  Was  more 
than  one  text  used?  In  chemistry,  did  the  text  follow  the  nature-study, 
theoretical,  or  historico-systematic  presentation? 

154.  Was  the  work  of  the  course  well  organized  and  proportioned, 
or  was  it  trivial  and  superficial  in  scope  ('chicken-feed  science')?  Did 
it  attempt  to  give  a  rapid  general  survey  of  the  whole  science  or  to  de- 
vote intensive  study  to  restricted  portions? 

155.  Was  the  work  so  taught  as  to  develop  enthusiastic  interest 
and  to  inculcate  the  spirit  of  science  or  was  it  sterile  and  perfunctory  ? 


32 

Was  the  teacher  in  love  with  his  work,  in  sympathy  with  the  ideals  of 
science,  and  did  he  know  more  than  the  text-book  contained? 

156.  Was  the  work  of  the  teacher  hampered  by  lack  of  appreciation 
of  the  importance  of  his  subject  on  the  part  of  the  public  or  of  the  school 
board,  by  lack  of  equipment  or  funds,  by  the  requirement  of  over-much 
work,  by  the  restrictions  imposed  by  college  requirements  or  set  forms 
or  syllabi  of  any  sort,  by  lack  of  library  facilities  in  the  school  or  local- 
ity, by  lack  of  stimulus  from  meetings  with  other  science  teachers,  etc.? 

157.  What  seemed  the  main  object  of  the  course;  what  advantages 
did  the  teacher  seek  to  give  the  pupil  as  a  result  of  pursuing  this  course : 
— a  knowledge  of  natural  phenomena,  a  basis  for  other  high-school 
studies,  a  means  of  guidance  in  daily  life,  increased  manual  dexterity, 
preparation  for  college  examinations,  appreciation  of  the  spirit  of  science, 
mental  training,  as  in  observation,  cautious  comparison  and  induction, 
in  the  appreciation  of  the  worth  of  facts  versus  opinion  and  authority, 
in  creative  imagination,  in  mental  rectitude,  or  what? 

(d)      The  Laboratory  Work 

158.  Equipment.  Was  there  a  special  laboratory  room?  Was  it 
shared  by  several  sciences  or  reserved  for  one?  Was  it  adequately 
equipped  with  desks,  apparatus-cases,  water,  gas,  electric  power,  pro- 
jecting lantern,  dark  shades,  hoods,  balances,  etc.?  Was  all  the  drill 
apparatus  in  duplicate?  Were  there  any  very  costly  pieces?  Was 
expensive  apparatus  used  where  cheaper  forms  would  have  answered? 
Was  the  apparatus  kept  in  good  condition?  Was  there  an  apparatus 
room  ?  Did  the  teacher  or  some  one  else  have  charge  of  the  distribution 
of  apparatus? 

159.  Was  the  laboratory  or  lecture  room  provided  with  illustra- 
tive charts,  with  portraits  of  men  of  science,  with  photographs  of  indus- 
trial processes,  etc?  Was  there  any  collection  of  minerals,  crystals, 
manufactured  products,  raw  materials,  etc.? 


33 

160.  Nature  of  the  work.  Were  pupils  led  to  experiment  mainly 
for  the  sake  of  discovery  (or  pseudo-discovery),  or  verification,  or  simply 
of  inquiry?  Which  received  the  greater  emphasis,  the  determination 
of  efficiency  or  the  verification  of  laws?     Cf.  question  187: 

161.  The  purposes  of  laboratory  work  have  been  variously  stated: 
it  has  been  said,  for  instance,  that  a  good  laboratory  experiment  (1) 
should  illustrate  an  important  principle  in  physics,  (2)  should  help 
fix  in  mind  a  principle  that  is  in  practical  use,  (3)  should  interest  and 
arouse  the  pupil's  curiosity.  (4)  should  illustrate  and  emphasize  the 
nature  of  scientific  work,  (5)  should  make  the  learner  realize  that  he 
is  studying  things  rather  than  statements,  (6)  should  tend  to  develop 
independent  thinking,  (7)  power  to  reason,  (8)  self-reliance,  (9)  ac- 
curacy of  expression,  (10)  should  foster  skill  in  manipulation,  (11) 
skill  in  methods  of  experimentation,  (12)  should  verify  something 
learned  in  the  class,  (13)  should  be  suggestive  of  further  experiments, 
(14)  should  raise  the  pupil's  ideals  of  careful,  painstaking  work.  Which 
of  these  purposes  and  ideals  were  exemplified  in  the  work  you  witnessed  ? 
Which  not? 

162.  Was  any  research  work  done  either  by  teacher  or  pupils? 

163.  The  laboratory  class.  What  was  the  size  of  the  section? 
Did  all  undertake  the  same  experiment:  if  not,  how  many  different  ex- 
periments were  performed  simultaneously?  How  many  experiments 
were  performed  by  each  pupil  during  the  course?  Did  the  pupils  work 
individually,  in  pairs,  or  in  larger  groups?  If  in  groups,  did  the  co- 
operation seem  desirable?  Authorities  are  agreed  that  the  laboratory 
work  must  be  undertaken  in  a'  double-period ' :  was  this  done  in  the  school 
visited?  Was  any  laboratory  work  done  outside  of  regular  school 
hours  ? 

164.  Laboratory  direction  and  supervision.  Were  the  printed  di- 
rections (manual  or  syllabus)  coherent:  were  they  adequate,  meager, 
or  over-elaborate?     Did  the  teacher  have  to  supply   additional   direc- 


34 

tions  by  blackboard,  typewritten  or  verbal  instructions?  Had  the 
teacher  made  full  preparation  of  materials  and  apparatus  before  the 
experiment  ? 

165.  Was  the  teacher  in  continuous  attendance  during  the  period 
or  were  pupils  allowed  to  work  by  themselves? 

166.  Did  the  teacher  perform  any  part  of  the  experiment  for  the 
pupils  ? 

167.  If  demonstrations  were  given,  were  they  to  be  performed 
later  by  the  pupils,  or  were  they  experiments  demanding  special  skill? 

168.  Note-books  and  treatment  of  observations.  Was  a  printed 
form  used  for  report  or  note-book  ?  Was  there  a  set  form  for  the  re- 
porting of  all  experiments?  Were  the  directions  for  the  experiment 
as  given  in  the  manual  copied  into  the  report,  or  omitted  entirely,  or 
re-expressed  in  the  pupil's  own  language? 

169.  Was  there  a  book  for  original  notes  in  addition  to  the  final 
report-book:  if  the  latter  was  ' written  up'  after  the  experiment,  were 
the  original  notes  also  preserved  and  submitted  ?  Were  the  final  re- 
ports written  in  the  laboratory  or  at  home?  Was  the  time  taken  out 
of  the  laboratory  period? 

170.  Was  the  note-book  work  so  laborious  and  unhelpful  as  to  be 
mere  drudgery? 

171.  Were  the  reports  neatly  and  legibly  written?  Were  the  orig- 
inal notes  or  observations? 

172.  Did  the  teacher  insist  upon  the  recording  of  the  results  ac- 
tually observed?  Could  the  ' conclusions '  recorded  by  the  pupils  be 
actually  and  legitimately  derived  from  their  observations,  or  were  the 
results  '  cooked '  or  the  inferences  '  warped '  to  accord  with  the  text-book 
statements  ? 

173.  In  computation  work,  did  the  teacher  carefully  indicate  the 
legitimate  limit  of  fineness  ('significant  figures')  to  which  the  results 
could  be  carried? 


M.     Observation  of  Classes  in  Biology:  Botany,  Zoology,  and  Human 

Physiology 

(Utilize  such  questions  in  Section  L,  as  bear  upon  work  in  biology) . 
(a)   Questions  relating  to  all  the  biological  sciences 

174.  Place  in  the  curriculum.  Were  botany,  zoology,  and  physi- 
ology combined  and  correlated  into  a  single  course?  Is  so,  in  what 
year  was  it  given,  and  how  was  the  time  distributed  to  each  science? 
Did  this  course  precede  or  follow  work  in  physical  science  ?  If  botany 
and  zoology  were  combined,  but  human  physiology  given  independently, 
ascertain  the  reasons  for  this  if  possible. 

175.  Nature-study.  Had  the  pupils  studied  plants  and  animals  in 
the  nature-study  work  of  the  grades  ?  Did  this  elementary  work  seem 
to  be  of  value  in  stimulating  interest  in  high-school  biology  ?  Did  the 
high-school  and  grade  teachers  cooperate  in  this  work  so  as  to  correlate 
and  systematize  the  instruction  ?  Did  the  elementary  work  enable  the 
high-school  teacher  to  give  work  of  a  more  advanced  character? 

176.  Was  the  course  arranged  to  meet  the  practical  needs  of  the 
average  pupil  or  to  develop  botanists  and  zoologists  and  prepare  for 
further  work  in  science?  Was  any  stress  laid  upon  the  applications 
of  biology,  economic,  technological,  hygienic,  etc.,  e.  g.,  food  values  of 
plants  and  animals,  their  use  in  industries,  source  of  nitrogen,  produc- 
tion of  new  varieties,  bacteria  and  health,  infection  and  disinfection, 
contagion,  vaccination,  pure  food,  air,  water,  etc.? 

177.  Was  the  course  so  arranged  and  taught  as  to  inform  the  pu- 
pils in  regard  to  the  general  nature  of  organic  evolution?  Do  you  think 
that  either  teacher  or  pupils  had  an  adequate  idea  of  the  nature  and 
significance  of  evolution  and  of  the  importance  of  the  '  genetic '  point  of 

view? 

(85) 


36 

178.  Reproduction.  Did  the  text  or  the  teacher  intentionally 
avoid  all  reference  to  sex  and  reproduction  in  either  plants  or  animals, 
or  were  the  essential  facts  made  an  integral  part  of  the  course?  Was 
attention  given,  e.  g.,  to  cross-fertilization,  hybridization,  crossing,  and 
allied  topics  in  botany  or  to  spontaneous  generation,  asexual  reproduc- 
tion, parthenogenesis,  fertilization,  cell-division,  the  general  nature 
of  inheritance,  etc.,  in  zoology?  Was  the  study  of  reproduction  in  plants 
or  animals  intentionally  so  conducted  as  to  teach  something,  whether  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  concerning  the  facts  of  sex  or  hygiene  of  sex  in 
human  beings? 

179.  What  text-books  were  employed?  What  was  the  distribution 
of  time  to  text-book,  laboratory  or  field  work  respectively?  Which 
type  of  work  was  primary? 

180.  Was  due  attention  paid  to  the  biographic  and  historic  features 
of  biology,  e.  g.,  to  the  lives  of  Darwin,  Huxley,  Agassiz,  Virchow, 
Pasteur,  to  the  discovery  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  promulgation 
of  the  cell-theory,  of  the  germ-theory  of  diseases,  publication  of  the 
Origin  of  Species,  etc.? 

181.  Did  you  see  any  evidence  of  the  over-emphasis  of  nomenclature 
and  technical  terminology  condemned  by  Hall,  Adolescence,  ii.,  148L, 
210.  ? 

182.  Did  you  note  any  errors  in  the  use  of  terms,  particularly  of 
the  terms  'cause'  and  'purpose,'  due  to  an  improper  teleological  inter- 
pretation of  nature,  e.  g.,  "The  squash  seed  has  a  peg  because  it 
needs  it  to  open  the  seed-coat?  "  Or  did  the  teacher  permit  the  loose 
and  inaccurate  use  of  terms,  of '  explanations '  that  did  not  explain,  e.  g., 
''The  veins  carry  impure  blood,"  "Food  is  needed  to  keep  the  body 
alive." 

183.  Did  you  note  any  sentimentalism,  e.g.,  the  teaching  of  an  in- 
discriminating  love  of  animals  and  plants,  refusal  to  take  life  for  pur- 


37 

poses  of  instruction  and  examination,  the  ascription  of  quasi-human 
attributes  to  plants,  etc.? 

184.  Were  fundamental  and  essential  principles  lost  or  obscured  in 
a  superabundance  of  less  important  details? 

185.  Laboratory  work.  On  equipment,  cf.  questions  158  and  159. 
Was  the  lighting  adapted  for  microscopy?  Was  the  equipment  adequate 
for  work  in  biology?  Note,  for  instance,  the  presence  or  absence  of 
suitable  microscopes,  dissecting  stands,  aquaria,  vivaria,  living  and 
preserved  specimens  of  plants  and  animals,  dark  room,  conservatory, 
camera  lucida,  paraffin  oven,  microtome,  projection  lantern,  clinostat, 
auxanometer,  collection  of  illustrative  charts,  photomicrographs,  etc. 

186.  Were  the  local  fauna  and  flora  used  where  possible  in  prefer- 
ence to  specimens  purchased  from  dealers?  Was  material  collected 
by  the  pupils  wholly  or  in  part? 

187.  Was  the  laboratory  work  largely  verification  or  investigation 
('discovery,'  ' interrogation')?  If  both  were  used,  which  took  the 
longer  time?  Which  seemed  to  you  better  for  acquiring  information? 
Which  for  training  in  scientific  method?     Cf.  question   160. 

188.  Was  too  much  drawing  required?  Were  all  drawings  original 
or  was  some  copying  from  books  permitted  ?  Did  the  teacher  require 
finished,  artistic  drawings  or  merely  rough,  simple  outline  drawings, 
provided  they  showed  the  essential  features? 

(6)      Questions  relating  to  botany 

189.  Content  and  type  of  course.  Did  the  course  belong  to  (a)  the 
herbalist  (descriptive  analysis),  (b)  the  plant-and-animal  (fern-earth- 
worm), (c)  the  synthetie,  or  (d)  the  'type'  variety  of  course,  or  (e)  were 
the  main  divisions  of  botany  taken  up  separately?  If  synthetic,  was 
morphology  or  physiology  made  primary?  Was  particular  stress  laid 
on  any  one  phase,  such  as  anatomy,  physiology,  ecology,  or  classification 
of  plants? 


38 

190.  Were  the  pupils  required  to  make  an  herbarium? 

(c)      Questions  relating  to  zoology 

191.  Content  and  type  of  course.  Did  the  course  belong  to  the 
type  emphasizing  'natural  history'  or  to  the  type  emphasizing  mor- 
phology and  anatomy?  Was  it  like  nature-study  continued,  with  the 
fostering  of  interest  in  animal  life  as  the  primary  purpose? 

192.  Of  the  principal  phases  of  zoology  that  have  been  suggested 
for  high-school  treatment — anatomy  (gross  and  microscopical),  physi- 
ology, ecology  (bionomics),  classification,  embryology,  palaentology, 
evolution  and  descent,  economic  zoology,  and  history  of  zoology, — which 
were  studied  in  the  course  under  observation  ?  Were  the  several  phases 
taught  separately  or  more  or  less  in  conjunction,  e.  g.,  was  the  study 
of  the  physiology  of  any  form  intimately  correlated  with  that  of  its 
anatomy? 

193.  In  what  order  were  the  phyla  studied:  what  types  or  what 
animals  were  selected  to  represent  these  phyla? 

194.  What  was  the  beginning  work?  Was  it  of  the  natural  history 
type  ?  Was  the  use  of  the  microscope  taught  at  once  ?  Was  the  animal 
first  studied  a  protozoan  or  metazoan?  How  much  time  was  given  to 
this  first  study? 

195.  Was  special  time  devoted  to  any  of  the  following  animals: 
— fish,  cray-fish,  earth-worm,  frog,  grass-hopper,  rat,  rabbit,  cat? 

196.  Was  the  study  of  invertebrates  accorded  more  time  than  the 
study  of  vertebrates  ? 

(d)     Questions  relating  to  human  physiology 

197.  Content  and  type  of  course.  Was  the  work  conjoined  and 
correlated  with  biology  proper,  i.  e.,  was  it  presented  as  the  biology  of 
man, — species,  varieties,  distribution,  morphology,  etc.,  or  given  in- 
dependently? 

198.  Was  excessive  attention  given  to  anatomy? 

199.  Was  the  teaching  of  hygiene  confined  to  text-book  and  mem- 


39 

Oriter  work  or  were  demonstrations  and  experiments  given?  Were  the 
principles  of  hygiene  made  significant  by  encouraging  their  immediate 
application  to  the  daily  life  of  the  pupils? 

200.  Temperance  instruction.  Was  this  required  by  law  in  the 
high  school?  Was  it  given  entirely  as  text-book  work?  How  much 
space  was  given  in  the  course  and  in  the  book  to  alcohol  and  narcotics  ? 
Were  all  the  statements  made  in  strict  accordance  with  the  results  of  scien- 
tific investigation?  How  much  of  this  material  was  straight  physi- 
ology, how  much  economics,  ethics,  etc.?  What  seemed  to  be  the  effect 
of  such  required  instruction  upon  the  teacher,  upon  the  pupils,  and  upon 
interest  in  the  study  of  scientific  physiology? 


N.     Observations  of  Classes  in  Physical  Geography  and  Geology 

(With  slight  modification  many  of  the  questions  relating  to  the 
physical  and  biological  sciences  may  be  utilized  in  the  observation  of 
the  study  of  the  earth  sciences.  The  questions  in  Sections  L  and  M 
should  therefore  be  kept  in  mind  here  as  well  as  those  in  Sections  B,  C, 
and  D.) 

201.  Place  in  the  curriculum.  In  what  year  was  this  subject 
taught?     Was  a  full  year  devoted  to  it?     Was  it  prescribed  or  elective? 

202.  Content  of  course.  What  was  the  percentage  of  time  given 
to  the  three  major  divisions, — atmosphere,  ocean  and  lands?  Was 
any  attention  given  to  the  purely  astronomical  and  geological  phases? 
(Note  that  the  Regents  of  New  York  State  have  prescribed  this,  but 
that  most  physical  geographers  are  not  in  favor  of  it.) 

203.  Text  and  reference  books.  What  text-book  was  used?  Did 
the  teacher  encourage  and  require  the  use  of  reference  books,  and  what 
in  general  were  these  ?  Did  the  teacher  supplement  the  text  by  lectures 
or  other  means  of  instruction,  and  was  he  competent  to  do  so?  How 
many  other  subjects,  and  what,  did  the  teacher  have  in  his  charge? 

204.  Laboratory.  Was  there  a  special  laboratory  for  this  subject: 
if  so,  what  did  its  equipment  include?  Did  it  provide  for  experimental 
work  with  water,  or  was  the  work  confined  purely  to  the  study  of  maps, 
models,  and  specimens?       J 

205.  Do  the  school  authorities  recognize  the  importance  of  better 
equipment  and  encourage  the  teacher  in  efforts  to  develop  the  labor- 
atory, or  has  the  development  succeeded  in  spite  of  the  authorities? 

206.  How  much  time  was  devoted  to  laboratory  work? 

207.  What  was  the  apparent  pedagogical  aim  of  the  laboratory  in- 
struction aside  from  the  mere  conveyance  of  information.  ?  Cf .  questions 

34,  160,   161  and  187. 

(40) 


41 

20S.  What  facilities  does  the  region  afford?  Field  work  is  gener- 
ally recognized  as  the  best  means  of  giving  instruction  in  this  subject: 
if  there  is  no  field  work,  what  is  the  reason:  are  there  any  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  taking  field  classes,  such,  for  example,  as  lack  of  time,  or  ex- 
pense attached  to  the  work? 

209.  How  were  the  results  of  laboratory  or  field  work  preserved? 
Was  a  regular  note-book  used  ?  One  of  the  standard  laboratory  manuals  ? 
Which  one?  Was  it  found  to  be  satisfactory  ?  If  not,  in  what  respects? 
Cf.  especially  questions  168-170. 

OFT." 

university 

CF 


References  for  Consultation 

For  the  best  utilization  of  this  guide  the  observer  should  have  a 
general  familiarity  with  the  problems  which  arise  in  the  teaching  of  those 
classes  which  he  proposes  to  visit.  Aside  from  psychology  and  hygiene 
most  of  the  points  which  have  been  raised  in  these  questions  are  covered 
in  the  following  references. 

C.  Bennett  and  G.  Bristol,  The  Teaching  of  Latin  and  Greek. 

H.  Bourne,  The  Teaching  of  History  and  Civics. 

E.  Bagster-Collins,  The  Teaching  of  German  in  Secondary  Schools. 
G.  Carpenter,  F.  Baker  and  F.  Scott,  The  Teaching  of  English. 

P.  Chubb,  The  Teaching  of  English. 

C.  DeGarmo,  The  Principles  of  Secondary  Education. 

F.  Gouin,  The  Art  of  Teaching  and  Studying  Languages. 

G.  Hall,  Adolescence. 

B.  Hinsdale,  How  to  Study  and  Teach  History. 

F.  Lloyd  and  M.  Bigelow,  The  Teaching  of  Biology. 

A.  Smith  and  E.  Hall,  The  Teaching  of  Chemistry  and  Physics. 

D.  Smith,  The  Teaching  of  Elementary  Mathematics. 
J.  Young,  The  Teaching  of  Mathematics. 

A  New  Movement  among  Physics  Teachers,  School  Review,  xiv., 
Nos.  3,  6,  9,  io:  School  Science  and  Mathematics,  vii.,  No.  4. 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


(42) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


1916 


JUL  31  1917 
JUL  81 1920 


30m-l,*15 


«-^l 


^         Ux^ 


TO  00756 


192893 


V 


u)fc^a* 


